There is nothing we do today which will not be done better tomorrow.

Sherwood Washburn has arguably made the greatest impact on the method of physical study of humans, their ancestors, and their close relatives since the theories of Darwin and Wallace were unleashed on the Linnean Society in 1858 by Lyell and Hooker (Gould 1980:48). His essay, "The New Physical Anthropology" (Washburn 1951), was a clarion call to the field to realize the potential of genetics and functional anatomy in the pursuit of knowledge about human and primate evolution. Beyond this major contribution, Washburn made scientific advances in the fields of primatology and forensic anthropology. He urged scientists in anatomy and behavior to look beyond the presence or absence of a trait and to determine under what conditions a trait might be found. He advocated interdisciplinary studies, so that all available methods might be used to advance science. Throughout his forty-year academic career, Sherwood Washburn urged others to look beyond the answers to find the questions.

Sherwood Washburn was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts November 26, 1911 to Henry and Edith Washburn (DeVore 1992:413; Grand 1999:229). From an early age he knew he was expected to be a great thinker, and directed his energies toward science. He volunteered in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) while still in high school, and continued these relationships into his undergraduate and graduate years. He and his brother, Bradford (1909 - present), both attended Harvard University, the school their father, a distinguished theologian, and his brothers had attended (Grand 1999:229). Dr. Bradford Washburn became a photographer and mountaineer, and is largely responsible for the definitive mapping and photographing of Mount McKinley, the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest and New Hampshire's Presidential Range. He was Director of the Boston Museum of Science for 41 years (Sandrof 1998). Equally as successful and driven, Sherwood Washburn received his B.A., Summa Cum Laude, in Anthropology from Harvard in 1935. He received his Ph.D., also from Harvard, in 1940, embarking on a long and illustrious career as a renowned scientist and teacher (DeVore 1992:414).

Washburn felt that Hooton's "advanced teaching was simply incorrect", and although he appreciated Hooton's undergraduate teaching and his interest in human evolution and behavior, he could not accept the concept of "pure races" nor Hooton's research methods and applications of physical anthropology (Washburn 1983:215). Upon his own first meeting with Theodosius Dobzhansky at Columbia University, Dobzhansky first asked if Washburn was a Hooton student, then said "I do not understand the method of finding several racial types in one population." Washburn replied, "I do not believe in types and think it is populations which should be compared." Upon hearing this Dobzhansky smiled and heartily shook Washburn's hand (Washburn 1983:216). Despite Hooton's apparent lack of popularity among scholars of the day, he attracted large numbers of students; at the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium of 1950, 11 of 18 anthropologists giving papers had been Hooton students (Washburn 1983:223).

At the end of his first graduate year Washburn had the opportunity to study human anatomy at Michigan with Dr. W.T. Dempster, and at Oxford with W. E. LeGros Clark (Washburn 1983:216). Dempster opened his eyes to functional anatomy, the workings of the muscles in combination with the joints and bones to produce a functional complex. LeGros Clark taught Washburn to seek the pattern in the facts.

Washburn was convinced that simply describing observable traits and then drawing conclusions about them did not scientifically prove anything (DeVore 1992:416). While at Columbia Washburn worked with the head of the anatomy department, Dr. S.R. Detwiler, on experiments using amphibian embryos (Washburn 1983:218). The object of one experiment was to discover the relation of the eye orbit to the eye. Detwiler and Washburn put the eye of a large amphibian embryo into the developing orbit of a smaller amphibian species; the eye displaced the orbital structures by 140% (Washburn 1983:218). Washburn wrote a paper on this subject to submit to the American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Washburn 1943). It was soundly rejected until after several revisions had been submitted (Washburn 1983:218).

After this "eye-opening" experience with Dr. Detwiler, Washburn was determined to conduct other experiments to answer questions currently unanswerable with typological methods (DeVore 1992:416). He began a series of experiments on animals injected with alizarin dye. The dye showed the area of bone growth that occurred at the time of injection and immediately following. Through this technique and through experimental surgeries (Washburn 1983:218), Washburn studied the effect of paralysis of the facial muscles (Washburn 1946a), removal of the zygomatic arch (Washburn 1946b), as well as the deformation of the skull from the experimental detachment of the temporal muscle (Washburn 1947). In another experiment he removed the parietal bones from a rat which lived 60 days after this surgery; its skull grew nearly normally. The comparison of these experiments shows that the muscle is the clear form-determining element in bone growth (DeVore 1992:417). For this last experiment, Washburn won the respect of Paul Fejos of the Wenner-Gren foundation, and also $1800 to complete the experiment (Washburn 1983:221).

The physical anthropology community was not taken by the idea of experimentation. The experimental method would require the study of animals, something physical anthropologists simply were not trained to. As a consequence, he had difficulty getting his experiments published in anthropological journals; he did not publish nearly as many animal experiments as he performed (DeVore 1992:417). Washburn was still deeply involved in animal experiments when he was offered a physical anthropology position at Chicago. He accepted the position, as he was promised an anatomy lab where his experiments could continue (DeVore 1992:417).

In 1951 Washburn succeeded in making his voice heard with the publication of his seminal paper, "The New Physical Anthropology" (Washburn 1951), in which he called for physical anthropology to drop its old ways and follow where the field of biology had led. The "old" physical anthropology, with which Washburn found so much fault, was a discipline based on techniques - anthropometry, craniometry, and morphometrics. It was a discipline largely lacking in theory (Washburn 1951:298). Practitioners of physical anthropology were primarily concerned with classification, especially of race, and most did not attempt to study heredity or weave genetics or evolutionary theory into their work. Many, such as Washburn's mentor, Hooton, were focused on finding a scientific basis for racism in support of the eugenics movement (Washburn 1983:216). Washburn was concerned that physical anthropology was ignoring the adoption of the "Modern Synthesis" among biologists as well as the accompanying change in systematics, and felt that physical anthropology should develop theory based on biology's lead (Washburn 1951:298). He stressed that physical anthropologists should use knowledge of genetic and evolutionary theory to attempt to explain the mechanisms of human evolution and human variation (Washburn 1951:299-300). Regarding races, he stressed that the study of race must utilize population genetics, and that "races" that could not be reconciled with genetics "should be removed from consideration" (Washburn 1951:299). He suggested that this "new" physical anthropology be called "biological anthropology" to reflect the change in paradigm, and that the field should be 80% concerned with genetics. He stated that biological anthropologists should use the traditional techniques of physical anthropology toward this end, rather than as an end in themselves (Washburn 1951:303).

The intellectual climate at the University of Chicago was a new experience for Washburn. The core of the department during this period was comprised of Sol Tax, Fred Eggan, and Bob Redfield, all profoundly influenced by British social anthropologist A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (DeVore 1992:418; Washburn 1983:221). This was a stark contrast to Washburn's experience among the Boasians that dominated in anthropology departments across the country; indeed, Chicago was the "stronghold of the British social anthropologists". This meant that within the department there was a strong focus on social functional complexes, with special attention paid to behavior (Dunnell 1986:35); Washburn could find no better place for the support of his ideas. Indeed, Sol Tax began operating his own renegade anthropological work-in-progress in 1948 with the start of the Fox Project, the first example of "Action Anthropology" in the United States (van Willigen 1993:29). Certainly the University of Chicago anthropology department was used to "going against the grain".

Not long after Washburn moved his family to Chicago, the anatomy department withdrew its promise of lab space, a point that troubled Washburn the entire eleven years he taught there (DeVore 1992:417). Ever creative and passionate about his experimentation, Washburn and his graduate students raised pigs in the basement of a campus building for use in experiments. They fed madder roots to the pigs to stain their skulls directly before slaughter, allowing them to see exactly where the bone was growing, and what portion of the bone was involved. Washburn continued to surgically manipulate the muscles to observe the growth anomalies that resulted from these manipulations. The results showed that large bony areas of the skull are often the results of two different processes. He discovered that both the neck muscles and the jaw muscles affect the growth of the nuchal crest (DeVore 1992:417). These landmark experiments taught a new generation of physical anthropologists the scientific benefits of experimentation, and no doubt directly influenced the realm of modern medicine. Washburn conceded in 1992 that such experiments would not be tolerated in today's world, but noted that at the time nothing was known about the effects of such surgeries. He believes that the knowledge gained has proved valuable and does not need repeating (DeVore 1992:415).

It was during this time that Washburn made a great contribution to what was to become the field of forensic anthropology. In 1949 Washburn published his "Sex Differences in the Pubic Bone of Bantu and Bushman" (Washburn 1949) describing a method for determining both sex and race of human skeletal remains from measurements of the innominate. The ischio-pubic index he devised is still considered a valid addition to the forensic anthropologist's arsenal (Bass 1995:199-200).

In 1948 Washburn had the opportunity to go to Africa with Dr. P. Fejos, supported by the Wenner-Gren foundation (Washburn 1983:222). While there, Washburn met both Raymond Dart and Robert Broom, and had the opportunity to examine several Australopithecus fossils. This experience brought Washburn to begin to extrapolate the methods of study of primate functional complexes to fossil humans (DeVore 1992:417). A subsequent trip to Africa in 1955 for a Pan African Congress inspired an interest in baboon behavior, and the concept of discovering the behavior of human ancestors from a comparison of the physical functional complexes of humans and primates (Washburn 1983:223).

1. Diagnose evolutionary complexes.
2. Describe variations in adaptations.
3. Determine the underlying biology and genetics of each adaptive complex.
4. Identify the conditions that would have selected for the adaptation.
5. Improve the quality of phylogenetic reconstructions and do so with better methods, better theory and with social responsibility.

Washburn found himself with little free time once established at Berkeley. He was now responsible for teaching the myriad of undergraduates who came to Berkeley specifically to study under him, and greatly enjoyed this task (DeVore 1992:419). However, he no longer had the time to devote to experimentation. He turned the reins of experimentation over to his graduate students, who followed the five principles listed above, and who still do this today (see Strum et al. 1999).

By this time Washburn was also continually asked to chair committees and put together global conferences such as the Wenner-Gren conference "The Social Life of Early Man" in 1961 (DeVore 1992:420). He was elected president of the American Anthropological Association in 1962; the Board determined that it should issue a statement on race, but the deliberations over the actual statement became so deadlocked that one Board member threatened to quit. The Board determined that Washburn's presidential statement would be the Association's official word on race. Washburn's address (1963b) denounced the "19th century typological thinking" of Carleton Coon and praised recent work by Dobzhansky (Washburn 1963b:237) thereby giving the edge to his own opinions on the matter of race. His careful dissection of every racial argument, including skin color, facial features, IQ, and culture, is a masterpiece. He reaffirms the aims of science to explain human evolution in populational terms, and cites human migration as a major obstacle to thinking of populations as "races". Washburn emphasizes that race is "supported by no phase of modern science" (Washburn 1963b:243). One simple statement sums up the address, however: "Racism is based on a profound misunderstanding of culture, of learning, and of the biology of the human species" (Washburn 1963b:243).

Washburn's interest in primates and his interactions with baboons in Africa inspired him to press for the recognition of primatology as a separate and useful subdiscipline of biological anthropology. He published on baboon society (Washburn and DeVore 1961) and later published "The Promise of Primatology" (Washburn 1973) in which he explained the attributes of having primatology as a separate science. He states that it is interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, problem-oriented, and experimental. Most importantly, he stresses that primatology will provide "a fundamental challenge to the notion that there are different levels of knowledge and that the social should be studied without reference to the biological" (Washburn 1973).

One of Washburn's most notable students in this area is Shirley Strum. Strum has continued to be a major player in the field of primatology for 25 years, spending half the year in Kenya, and half at the University of California, San Diego, where she teaches and is the Director of the Uaso Ngiro Baboon Project (Strum 1998). She continues to study baboons in the wild, and has recently focused on the question of the influence of (female) gender on the study of primatology, in collaboration with Linda Fedigan (Strum and Fedigan 1999).

One of the students at Chicago most profoundly caught up in Washburn's new physical anthropology was Irven DeVore, who followed Washburn from Chicago to Berkeley in 1958, and collaborated with Washburn on several projects throughout the 1960s (DeVore 1992:438; Washburn 1983:224-225). DeVore was interested in this new mix of primate behavior studies and human evolution, and studied baboons in Nairobi Park for one year. He used bits of food to work out the hierarchy among the baboons; when food was thrown between two or three animals, the dominant individual would take it (Washburn 1983:224). Together Washburn and DeVore published "The Social Life of Baboons" (Washburn and DeVore 1961). From there, Washburn published a treatise insisting on the inclusion of functional behavioral complexes in the trait lists used to build primate taxonomy (Washburn 1963a). This focus on primate behavior led Washburn to publish a study with his student D.A. Hamburg, "Aggressive Behavior in Old World Monkeys and Apes" (Washburn and Hamburg 1968). They propose that aggression as evidenced though hormones, brain function, and anatomical features in concert with behavior is a functional complex and state that human aggression can only be analyzed in this evolutionary context.

From these interests in behavioral functional complexes of the extant primates, Washburn and students considered the "hunting hypothesis" originally conceived of by Darwin and brought to popular attention by Dart (Wolpoff 1999). Washburn's support of the "man the hunter" hypothesis may be the only strike against him in his career. DeVore and another Washburn student, R.B. Lee, edited a volume on the subject entitled Man the Hunter, to which Washburn contributed a paper co-authored with C.S. Lancaster, "The Evolution of Hunting" (Washburn and Lancaster 1968). Washburn, DeVore, and another Washburn student, A. Mann, have each fervently defended the idea for many years against its "rival" theory, humans as scavengers (DeVore 1992:420; Wolpoff 1999:196). Mann argued that the lessening of the importance of human canines was due to the use of tools, and affected the rise of culture, while Tooby and DeVore have argued that "humans" came into existence when a group of apes descended from the canopy and took up a carnivorous lifestyle. This "killer ape" theory of male-male aggression and violence has been used to absolve mankind of some of its less savory tendencies (Wolpoff 1999:195-196). In general the "hunting hypothesis" has been attacked on the basis that it is sex-biased toward males in every respect (see Dahlberg 1981); in Washburn's day, however, this type of male-oriented thinking was not questioned, as it reflected American societal views to the point where it was unnoticeable.

A true "Jack of all Trades", Sherwood Washburn also wrote on public education from the standpoint of human evolution and our current evolutionary status (Washburn 1975). He felt that American schools often create "bored and alienated primates" who do not see the point of what they are asked to learn, as humans are instinctively more interested in that knowledge that is useful in daily life than that which has little relevance (Washburn 1975:196). He recommendations to allow group learning, a more evolutionarily correct method, as is evidenced in all the major primate groups and in "primitive" societies (Washburn 1975:197-198).

Washburn's bulldog attitude toward the use of all scientific methods to solve anthropological questions permeated the entire discipline of anthropology. It was likely a contributing factor to Binford's (1968) push for a scientific archaeology in the 1960s and for the current arguments by Lett (1997) and Kuznar (1997) for a scientific cultural anthropology. The strong reaction to all of this science has been the paradigm of deconstruction or postmodernism, whose members at their most radical feel that anthropology is no place for science as truth is relative (Lee 1999:188). Sherwood Washburn's contribution to this debate cannot be forgotten, and his goal of looking past the answers to find the question is a point well taken in cultural anthropology at the present time.

Sherwood Washburn advocated communication between all scientific disciplines, and believed that the best science came from the use of all available methods in order to answer questions as scientifically as possible (Strum 1999). He was constantly revising his own position on issues in light of new information, and called for others in the sciences to put away their egos and do the same. He thought that science would progress further, faster, if scientists were to perceive it as a game and play as a team, rather than holding grudge matches (Washburn 1974).